Ignoble Hillary
Does anyone wonder why women who support Hillary Clinton for president get (excuse the vernacular) PO'd at some of our fellow Democrats?
It's because very time we turn around, someone is dissing our candidate in ways that infuriate us. He (or she) is using sexist, insulting language about the first woman to mount a viable run for the presidency, in ways that, to say the least, we do not appreciate.
While many of us see Barack Obama as an exciting, able and worthy candidate, and will gladly vote for him if he is the nominee, we do not see the same respect given to Hillary Clinton.
Take Ted Kennedy's remark that Hillary should not be on the ticket with Obama if he is the nominee. Instead, Kennedy wants someone who "is in tune with the nobler aspirations of the American people."
So what is ignoble about Hillary Clinton? Her health care policy, which is more inclusive than Obama's? Her work in 1972 with Marian Wright Edelman on school desegregation in the South? Her work in Arkansas, in the White House, and in the senate on children's rights? Her proposal to fully fund services for children with autism? (I have two grandkids who are mildly autistic, so this proposal does not seem at all ignoble to me). Or maybe her support for the right to choose, or her sensible plan to withdraw from Iraq in a way that does not put US troops at great risk?
I'd argue that Hillary Clinton, by her deeds, has proved herself every bit as noble as Obama, who also supports good policies. But Clinton, if just by virtue of longevity, has in fact done more.
I'll admit that as much as I admire Obama's idea about bringing Democrats and Republicans together, my years of covering politics -- especially in recent years -- make me skeptical. As long as the GOP operates on the Rovian principal of winning by keeping the base in constant upheaval, always recycling wedge issues, true bi-partisanship is next to impossible.
We women who wanted to see a woman president in our lifetime have been appalled by the sexism of the campaign. I personally have wanted to throw a shoe at the TV screen (especially when MSNBC is on) when panel after panel seems to consist of male pundits giving advice to the young prince about how to defeat the wicked witch of the west.
When Boston university journalism student Melissa Nawrocki examined campaign coverage, she found that the media accused Clinton of being insane, murderous, witchlike, depressed, and egomaniacal:
• On a Dec. 20, 2007 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said that Clinton's political goal was "to smother the young senator [Obama] in his crib," using the visual of a murderous Clinton killing an infant Obama. Matthews also has referred to Clinton as "witchy" and a "stripteaser."
• In a Feb. 27 New York Times column, Maureen Dowd wrote that Clinton "has turned into Sybil," referencing the book and movie about a women with multiple whiny personalities. Just one day prior, CNN's The Situation Room commentator Jack Cafferty said that Clinton "[resembled] someone with a multiple personality disorder." Two days earlier, Chicago Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman said on MSNBC's Hardball that Clinton's recent behavior "comes across a little schizophrenic."
Sexist language has been over the top. In the course of her public life, Hillary Clinton has been called, in print, Lady Macbeth, the Wicked Witch of the East, a harridan, a virago and The Yuppie Wife from Hell, to name just a few. She's been compared to Glen Close as the murderous career woman in "Fatal Attraction." During the campaign, her "cackle" became the subject of countless media reports, as if she were indeed stirring a pot and chanting, "Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and caldron bubble."
On the blog mediaCrit, Ashleigh Crowther noted the coverage of Hillary's laugh. Patrick Healy of the New York Times dubbed it the "Clinton Cackle," Frank Rich of the Times called it " calculating," and pundit Dick Morris called Clinton's laugh 'loud, inappropriate, and mirthless . . .. A scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech.'"
On the O'Reilly Factor, a "body language expert" called Clinton's laughter "evil." ABC's Good Morning America, CNN's Situation Room, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Hardball included stories about it.
Sexist language often gets a chuckle from male media commentators -- such as the video clips of the young men who held up a sign, "Hillary Clinton, stop running for president and make me a sandwich." Imagine the outrage if that sign had said, "Barack Obama, stop running for president and shine my shoes."
Hillary's physical attributes have also been fair game. Matt Taibbi, national political reporter for Rolling Stone, referred to Clinton's "flabby" arms in his Apr. 3 piece, "Hillary's Flimsy Case." Writers have sniggered at her pantsuits, her wrinkles, her hairdos, her makeup, etc. etc. The men running for president this year displayed an array of paunches, double chins, bald pates, and jowls, and yet rarely were those cause for comment.
This reflects what Susan Sontag called "The Double Standard of Aging." There is just one standard of beauty for women -- the nubile 20-year-old, while men like Sean Connery and Harrison Ford can be considered sex symbols in their sixties, grey hair or no hair.
The double standard serves to silence women, keeping them out of the public arena. Mockery of one's physical attributes is especially painful. Hillary Clinton, in fact, looks great for a woman of sixty, fit and attractive. But she's often covered as if she were some kind of crone. Rush Limbaugh -- no poster boy of pulchritude himself -- spoke with dread of watching Hillary Clinton age in office. He made no such comment about 70-plus John McCain.
Might a future female candidate who doesn't resemble a pubescent supermodel shy away of running for fear of a vicious assault on her every sign of age? Or will she simply shudder at the expectation that she will be called evil, nutty and murderous? All this will give the next woman who wants to run for president a reason to pause -- and push the day of the first woman chief executive far into the future.
Boston University Journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I do feel for you and your frustration about a woman candidate, but AS A WOMAN let me tell you ... the reason Hillary lost is not because she is a woman and not because of media bias. She is a politician who changes her stripes with each demographic she is playing to. Insincerity is the most "unappealing" part of her. Does that make the comment sexist? Obama can't lose his cool or he would look like "the angry black man", so I thank God he has an even temperament. It's not his style to flail from one emotion to the next. Oh,... like these for instance "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama.... SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!....
It isn't sexism when your candidate is seemingly a panderer, phony (although to be fair I do believe she cares very deeply about the issues) in her delivery, at times hostile, points to and waves at crowds that aren't there as play for the camera (called staging), and gives off an air of entitlement.
A woman could be President of these great United States. Fear not. But not this woman.
Great response!
Good Reponse
This is the source of the frustration: the lack of recognition that while Hillary Clinton brought her own problems to her campaign, the bottom line is that the way we think women running for high political office is very different from how we think about men, and until that part of the Clinton story is dissected and dealt with, women will be essentially blocked out of presidential politics -- permitted to run, but not to compete.
Clinton's actions were always interpreted through the lens of what society thinks a woman candidate "should" be. There is nothing that she has done in her campaign that every male candidate in existence hasn't done (including Barack Obama, I might add), but we're so used to that behavior in male candidates that we don't even see it anymore. They all pander. They all make sarcastic remarks. They all play to the cameras. Why is it so much more egregious for the female candidate to do the same thing?
(Continued)
Thanks calluna. Well-said.
Huzzah.
Not 100%, but esp: "...the lack of recognition that while Hillary Clinton brought her own problems to her campaign, the bottom line is that the way we think women running for high political office is very different from how we think about men, and until that part of the Clinton story is dissected and dealt with..."
Many people have trouble entertaining two thoughts at one time.
(Part Two)
Take your "even temperament" remark. That has little to do with "angry black man" fears. Most presidential candidates strive for that bland exterior, to connote the "presidential" image of calm and strength. "Angry" candidates are shuffled out the bottom of the pile (John Edwards, for example).
It's totally phoney, because to be that preternaturally calm, you're either lying or deeply repressed. Even Buddhist monks aren't perpetually calm. Clinton has shown a wider range of emotions that any presidential candidate I can recall, and yet all it has brought her as criticism, either because she's been too feminine (tearing up) or too unfeminine (angry, sarcastic, shrill, take your pick).
There is media bias, of course there is. But is it too much to ask to hold her responsible for her own actions that have cast her in a bad light?
Oh, I forgot, that's Clinton Politics 101: It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault...
I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree with your post. First you imply that he has been calm "out of fear of the anrgy black man" appearance. That comment was merely to show what it would "look like" not that he is calm on the outside but freaking out on the inside and acting or something.
Just curioius which non-Clinton-related females other commenters would have voted for OVER Obama.
Me? Madeleine Albright.
(And if anybody says Pelosi, I'll scream.)
Interesting!! I made the first post on this long array of posts - and made the same point. She has gravitas, intelligence, dignity, etc.
Madeleine Albright would be great, yes, but she was born in Prague.
Dumb question. I thought we wanted the best person to lead our country. Hillary didn't cut it this time.
I wish it WERE a dumb question, but in this America, it's not. While we're debunking stereotypes, I did not prefer others over Obama because he is black.
Could it be that she lies? (To her credit, she's even been known to admit it.)
Could it be that she and her surrogates have done everything they can to bring down Barack Obama while relying on plausible deniability arguments?
Could it be that she panders to people with gun-toting, booze-swilling, pointless and disingenuous suggestions that things like a gas tax holiday are viable plans to put a few cents back in their wallets over the summer?
No? Oh, okay, then, I guess they just hate her because she's a girl.
Hillary was doing fine with me until she started running her campaign like a republican. Even John McCain has not said and done the things to Obama that Hillary has doing. She introduce the picture of Obama in muslim garb just before the Ohio and Texas primary. She wanted people to believe (and they did) that he was muslim. Everyone knew what she did, especially the media. Hillary, was on national TV telling everyone that Obama's campaign gave Canada the old wink-wink about NATA. It was Clinton's campaign that met with Canada as well, but she did not tell it all. Later, it was discovered that Hillary had lied, wanting people to believe the worst of Obama The Canadian goverment said it was not true.
There is much more, but in essence, as a african american woman, I would still be in Hillary's corner had she not stooped so low. Many of us loved Hillary, but she is dug her own grave in the African American community. I know whites will say that Obama played the race card first but it is not true, Bill played the race card first and all African Americans know it. We are democrats Caryl, and you cannot go around using Karl Rove tactics and expect to win unless you are a republican.
But here's the thing softnsweet. She didn't run a negative campaign. You saw it that way partly because of sexism and partly because the MSM reported it that way because of sexism. Sure maybe some things that were said were not nice (politics), but he said things that weren't nice too (again politics). The things that he said were under-reported. Hers were run on a loop constantly.
Huzzah.
Simple, powerful, and backed up with evidence.
You got my vote!
Here we go again. . . .
As a feminist I accept that there was a lot of misoginy from the pundits.
Never from Obama, though.
But as an African American feminist I was shocked and sickened by the
racism (implied, subtly dissemintated and virtually spouted by Clinton.)
We are not talking tit for tat here. You are defending a woman who did
such vile things you would have had to take out a loan to by the paper to diss her
if she were a republican.
Why are you old school feminist bound and determined to get this pandering,
race baiting, lying woman into the White House? She is not a pillar of feminism.
She got here on her husbands coattails and you all know it. We have worthier women
out there who come with less baggage and who would be magnificent.
When it got hard for Hillary--she showed her mettle.
Leota2, excellent comment, mine was not where near as good as yours!
Leota2 You said it. I am supposed to be one of Senator Clinton's main supporters according to my age and gender but I am not.
I will give Sentor Clinton 500% credit for being the first viable woman to have run in the presidential campaign. I will thank Sentor Clinton profusely for breaking the way for the next woman that runs. But I will not vote for Sentor Clinton to be the president because of what has come out of her mouth and what she has done. Not for what her supporters have said, not because of what her campaign managers and surrogates have said and done.
As a feminist I believe I have the right to look beyond gender for the best president.
As a supporter of Obama I will follow his lead in working to bring the party together. Thank you Sentor Clinton for all you have done for the Democratic Party. You have shown us our strenghts and our weaknesses early in the game and that is important. You have brought many people to the party that weren't interested in politics.
As a feminist I work hard to make sure I don't play the victim. I don't always suceed but I try. I won't accept this victim trash from Sentor Clinton's supporters. Sentor Clinton is losing because of who she is not because of her gender. Obama is winning because of who he is, not because of his race.
You're being sexist. Think about it, bluesplash
And look at the abuse heaped on Ferarro when she came to Hillary's aid and pointed out the absurdity of the attacks on Hillary. The far left also shot the messenger. More concerning is that the womens movement has been coopted by the far left, but they show no real concern for womens issues beyond using them towards other goals.
Once again, a tremendous opportunity has been lost to the politics of personal destruction.
Sen. Obama will get my vote in November, and my support if he is elected president.
My enthusiasm, however will be in abeyance pending a dramatic change in our tawdry, disgusting political process. (Which I do not at all anticipate)
Al Gore was unfortunately very wise to refuse to submit himself to this appaling nominating process
Sad to say, the politics of personal destruction is soooo effective because we have become a nation of People magazine readers who can't even find Afghanistan on a map, and who think science is a threat to their religion.
Cogito, erGO GORE. Sigh.
To: "Reason is..." AMEN! ....(no pun intended).
The fantasy that somehow poor Hillary has been the victim neglects the obvious point that she had every advantage under the sun going into this race and was simply not capable of profiting from them and instead showed her ugly side and disparaged her challenger with the worst kind of religious and racial smears and despite this disgraceful effort her elderly female supporters continue to blindly support her no matter how disgusting she becomes. She wants to obliterate Iran, She talks about hard working whites and on and on. If a republican woman candidate stooped to such gutter politics she would be under attack by people like Ms. Rivers and rightfully so. There is a double standard and it has always favored Clinton who can do no wrong with these fanatics who support her despite her degrading campaign.
Great post!
Fanatics? Got mirror?
I was a late-comer to supporting Hillary, but she won me over with her thorough grasp of issues, and her steadiness under heavy political attack -- for fifteen years (as opposed to sniper fire). I would have preferred a good number of others to EITHER the White House vet or the Boy Wonder. On balance, I thought he'd be president -- someday -- based on his 2004 convention speech. But here we are.
I deplore race-baiting, but would note two points of irony: Obamanistas are quick to say Hillary plays the victim card while screaming race-baiting from the rooftops; and Hillary is playing the race card, but Obama gets 90% of the African American vote. It seems that Whites are voting more color-blind than blacks.
Call it practice for September to November when the REAL gladiator games will be held.
Obama 48
Hillary 12
Must I remind you that Obama didn't start out with 90% of the black vote? It was Hillary's to loose.
While you're noting Obama's AA, measure Hillary's gender vote, particularly among older white women -- the numbers are close to the same. Hillary and her surrogates have been playing the gender card all along. How many of these editorials have you read or how many times has Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton, Gerri Ferraro and Hillary herself complained about sexism? When has Obama complained that he wasn't getting fair treatment because of his race?
Hillary does not represent me or my friends. My friends (many of whom have never been married) have become successful totally on their own merits without relying on their husband's coattails. My friends have made their way in a man's world with honesty, integrity, loads of talent and grace.
Yes, Sen. Clinton has a thorough grasp of issues....
I would still much rather be a white woman in American in 2008 than a black man. For those who think otherwise, read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink."
Hillary the victim - that's a real stretch. Are so many so very clueless about the lives of REAL female victims in our nation?
It is interesting that you wrote...
"As long as the GOP operates on the Rovian principal of winning by keeping the base in constant upheaval..
because that is exactly how Hillary has been operating over the past months.
As to the criticism she has received, someone once said "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!"
I found sooo many things she has said and done to be offensive that I could not give her a chance at becoming our President. All the critiques of her are based in reality to some degree, and that is why she is receiving the criticism. One minute she feigns crying, and the next she is Rocky. One minute she is "for all Americans" and the next she is race baiting.
If she had stayed true to one path, had not swerved and swayed with the winds of political convenience, then she may have had a chance. But we are tired of politicians tellings us what they think we want to hear. Many are fed up with lies, division, and war.
Shakespeare said it best "This above all, to thine own self be true, and it should follow as the night the day, thou can'st not be false to any man."
If she cannot be true to herself, how can she be true to the American people?
Well writ.
As to "to thine own self be true," Obama votes... "present."
And Hillary uses your tax dollars to buy votes. Between 80% - 90% of the groups who received $$$$$$$$ in earmarks from her donated cash to her campaign.
"In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton obtained 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties."
She has been buying votes ever since she became a Senator. That was why she ran in the first place. She gets to use our hard earned money to buy her way into the White House.
NOT THIS WOMAN, NOT THIS TIME! NOT EVER!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your post. Yes, there has been sexism. But there has also been racism. To see one without the other is to be half blind. We can expect horrible things from the media. They've been a disservice to both candidates. But from the candidates themselves? The Clintons lost me for good with Rovian politics and finally, most offensively with the "hard working americans, white americans" comment. It makes it impossible to defend her.
Blame it on NARAL... Hillary wasn't ready on day one. Just a reminder to all...Bush
Yeah, yeah... Yeah, you can. Let's get it over with and face the stark reality: President McCain for 4 years...
-MS
Hillary needs to earn her respect and not because she is a woman. I have zero respect for a candidate that panders to the right by using iconoclastic saber rattling language about obliterating Iran. I have zero respect for a candidate who uses the same fear mongering tactics that got Bush reelected and which was used to ram the Patriot Act, the Military Act, and a plethora of moronic executive orders on the American people. I have zero respect for a politician who would hurt her own party's chances in November in order to raise her own personal chances of success.
The writer is looking for reasons to be offended by Hillary's critics (splinters in their eyes) and ignoring the game stopper faults of her own candidate (board in her eye).
Hillary's conduct during this campaign has been disgraceful. She's an embarrassment to all women, especially this 50 something woman.
Exactly! I would love to see a Madame President. Just not this one! In fact, if she is the best that women have to offer, maybe we don't need one. There is no need to try to outmacho the guys. Women have our own way of viewing the world that should be celebrated and embraced. In fact, Obama has embraced the 'female' values of collaboration, nurturing and fairness while Billary is going about brandishing her cojones, downing shots and dodging sniper fire.
Barack, on the other hand, is one of the best of the best that America, in particular Black America, has to offer. He has overcome obstacles that have nothing to do with his choice of a marriage partner and their conduct. He has overcome the obstacle of low expectations based on racial bias.
What is ignoble is the way she ran her campaign and the type of people she surrounded herself with. I am a successful, professional woman balancing motherhood and a thriving career and I think you need to take the chip off your shoulder. Hillary doesn't get a free pass on boorish behavior because she's a woman. She doesn't get to say horribly racial divisive things because she's a woman. Her campaign doesn't get to peddle story after story after story (by "staffers" for the sake of plausible deniability) to suggest that Senator Obama is an Al Quaeda loving terrorist who, gasp, is black and just might not have the same values as us. Please. I could care less anymore whether her supporters are angry at the rest of us. What makes me angry is the orchestrated campaign of righteous indignation suggesting we don't like her because she's a woman. We don't like her because of how she has campaigned. Ethics matter. Values matter. Ignoble is a kind word for her conduct over the last several months.
Thank you so very much for this post. Thank you so much.
Well said!
Jsarbee2--
Thank you.
I have supported and defended the Clintons since 1992.
But the last few months have been one disappointment after another--every time I think she has hit rock bottom, another trap door opens up to reveal unsuspected depths of shamelessness and mendacity.
She lost me for good when she said the Michigan primaries were fair.
So sad....
Well said.
Hear! Hear! Brilliant!
I wonder if Ms. Rivers has truly been following the campaign. If she has, it's appalling that she would sweep Clinton's outrageous behavior under the carpet because she's a woman. To me, that's sexism. Ms.Rivers would probably be the first to howl if Obama had conducted the kind of campaign that Clinton has.
No. It's obvious that Rivers hasn't been watching the campaign that closely or deeply. She's just trying to support her own academic self-importance. But her observations aren't anything new or original. And she conveniently ignores the fact that women make up about fifty percent of our culture and about fifty percent percent of the double-standard. Yes, sweeping Clinton's behavior under the rug because she's "woman as victim" is sexist. The real race isn't about double-standards, it's about competence.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
